Practice question
A domestic civil action names the actual incumbent President personally and concerns an allegedly private act. The claimant argues that Philippine presidential immunity necessarily covers only official acts, adopting that limitation from another jurisdiction. Under Nepomuceno's main resolution, which answer is correct?
- A private-act allegation always removes immunity during incumbency
- A claimant may determine immunity by choosing a foreign rule
- All private conduct is lawful whenever a person is President
- The cited Philippine incumbency rule does not distinguish official from private acts for this immunity from suit; it does not thereby legalize the act
- Every former President remains protected forever on that basis
Legal references
- Nepomuceno v. Duterte, UDK No. 16838, May 11, 2021, main resolution, presidential immunity during incumbency: https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2021/may2021/udk_16838_2021.html
- Office of the Ombudsman v. Duterte, G.R. Nos. 198201 and 198334, March 15, 2023, main decision, accountability and limits of presidential immunity: https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2023/mar2023/gr_198201_2023.html
Answer this question in flashcards to review your response and continue practicing.